[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081118213902.GC28825@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:39:02 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
Cc: Rufus & Azrael <rufus-azrael@...ericable.fr>,
Linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Fixing improper annotation.
* Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/08, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com> wrote:
> > On 11/11/08, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > okay - so i wont apply them until the full scope of the problems here
> > > is mapped. We might be best off by marking xsave_cntxt_init() non-init
> > > altogether for the time being?
> >
> > But, it's been called from an __init section, it will also trigger an
> > warning too. So, it
> > will remain as it was. If we goes to hunt these warnings ( I mean
> > we've to replace __init __alloc_bootmem() with __cpuinit
> > __alloc_bootmem() ) , it's not certain when it will stop. Likely , we
> > need to replace a lots of __init with __cpuinit.
> >
>
> Actually , if we replace __init __alloc_bootmem() with __cpuinit
> __alloc_bootmem() that doesn't solve the problem. The mentioned
> warning generates when CONFIG_ARCH_BOOTMEM_NODE=y is set. I think
> Ingo is right. We can mark xsave_cntxt_init() as non-init. And we
> could teach modpost to not to generate the warning with __ref. Can
> we, Ingo ?
sure. Marking stuff non-init is inherently safe as well.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists